Comments

WTF … what "rising communes"?! The hell are you talking about? Are we talking about in the US? Cause holy shit, are you ever smokin all the crazy pills if you believe that "neo-marxism" is the problem.

This must be that distinction between anarchy as pertains to the real world and stupid little turf battles within the subculture.

ffs no, not "with the police" … it's just bad logic. The logic of "pre-emption" is a very slippery slope. Throw in anti-communist paranoia in the US context and you're deep, deep in crazy town. Not because you're deliberately acting on behalf of the state, more conveniently aligning with it against the phantom red menace. This would be very unfortunate for the anarchist space, imo.

There's no need for paranoia... Just go do a survey on Reddit and other social media on who, among these so-called anarchists, are okay associating with communism. The discrete presence of Reds in anarchist milieus is overwhelming, but that ain't even a cryptic presence; they'll loftily admit it. The context of widespread chastization of the radical Left by the mainstream U.S. society gives it a kind of rebellious appeal, now only challenged by the whole Alt Right and their "anti-PC" dick-waving.

Where does that also differs from McCarthyism: it's about authoritarian factions. Not much about Left progressives and their values, who rather turn out to be starkly regressive Left these days. Identity politics, closet antisemitism, cultism, blind following of internal authority figures, "movementism"... you name it.

and why are you so adamantly opposed to people on reddit being "ok with communism"? Why zero in on these particular undercurrents of an objectively marginal set of political tendencies? Is this an age gap thing? I just don't get it. You can't relax unless everybody has an extremely hostile reaction to wealth redistribution narratives? Are you rich or something?

They represent no tangible threat to you, or power or anything except maybe the near-total hegemony of public discourse that capitalism has enjoyed for decades. Individualism in the anarchist space isn't under any credible ideological threat … it's such a strange hill to decide to die on. I mean … that's just my opinion but yeah.

"They represent no tangible threat to you" Ah yeah... got that sweet ol' leftie externalization logic. As long as it ain't "capitalist robber barons", they're all fiiine. Kinda like... there's no such thing as people being ostracized, shamed, and deprived forever of their friendships or more intimate relations with some people due to the Party's politics. Nah! Just them capitalist fat cats doing that thing. Coz you know the 1% is the source of all evil. And the cops too... just not those Red cops, because they're on our side. Coz revolution n shit.

HERE we go … so if this is the same person I've been talking to … if you're making a zine because people were mean? That would put this firmly in the stupid-anarchist-ghetto-turf-battles category, which is fine. I'll leave it up to the readers to decide which parody of our respective positions is more fukin ridiculous.

It's I'm-an-individualist-with-HURT-FEELINGS vs the classic everything-is-class-red-anarchist.
PLACE YOUR BETS, WHICH IS MORE BORING?!

I have no problem with Tiqqun. Some stuff is better than others. But I know quite a few cities where IC stuff has been successful in expanding US anarchism. I...don't understand why some of you are so against them? It's GREAT that they are reaching new audiences! Good luck with your project but jesus take it easy!

Maybe you didn't read about what happened in the ZAD? They took part in the repression of green anarchos in there... but their nasty cultist, elitist politics, in France and beyond, have become a real issue over the years. Like most known squats in France got intoxicated by their network, same as the tons of local collectives and scenes in NA.

Yeah … maybe if we had those sweet kremlin, soros dollars. Do you think social centres just grow on trees??!?!
I GAVE YEARS OF MY LIFE TO THAT FILTHY BASEMENT SPACE AND THE PUNK KIDS JUST COMPLAINED ABOUT IT

Do you accept original artwork? Will there be profit sharing with contributors? A flat honorarium? How many contributor copies will contributors receive? Is this an online-only zine or will it be printed? What other zines have you made and what is your distribution reach?

Hmmm well, the zine will be free online and free to download and distribute freely. This is an anti-capitalist project so there will be no profits to be made or shared. We have made only a few zines but are capable of printing and shipping 25-50 copies to those who contribute. Hope that helps!

a part of the object of critique of this compilation could include the “Cinema Committee” and its proposal to build communes summarized with the three step program/slogan of: 1. find each other 2. establish hubs 3. become resilient. in congruence with the Invisible Committee’s dictum of “spread anarchy, live communism”.

an initial critique of this proposal could be suggested by an alternative inverted proposal one could imagine a less red and more black @ putting forth: 1. become resilient (skill building, self-reliance) 2. find each other (interacting with others/reaching out as you may) 3. do whatever you want (instead of an imposed program or goal). this coukd be rephrased with fancier words as 1. action 2. rendezvous 3. emergent strategy.

this can be critiqued as well, but one can see the difference between both approaches, not necessarily incompatible or diametrically opposed, but there’s plent room for conflict and disagreement

Regarding this Central Burning Issue of Our Time: my money is on the ones with the nifty Mister Spock ears and the Starfleet uniform costumes -- they have phasers. Of course, I am somewhat biased here, since I have always wanted to have sex with Lieutenant Uhura.

A critique has to delve deeply into the psychology of the herding instinct within human nature and conclude that total freedom must begin firstly the arduous individuating process of overcoming the fear of solitary existence. It also must be scathing of the lazy submissive luxury of collective gatherings, of their ego-bonding and smug democracies, and their discreetly disguised hierarchies.
An honest description would mention the success of the primitive communized nomadic indigenous clan system structured around biologically related extended family lines, which allow for the fruition of individual agnostic consciousness.

it was only a perceived retraction of a perceived response to a meaningless quip! your predictability and insinuation of response-flaccidity is just meaningless as your life is meaningless, as you yourself are meaningless. welcome to your freedom.

Death of the author I say! To let an alleged reputation cause you to withdraw or retract your own contribution only goes to show the feeble and shallow depth of your critical imagination. As you wish, submissions will not be lacking or impotent.

Also, I have contemplated a parallel arrangement akin to an agnostic Amish clan with a kinship economy similar to the indigenous one. Some ideas to ponder upon no_tiqqin_no_co. There seem to be very few imaginative proposals emerging from the comments here other than slanderous negative verbal projectiles.

The closest thing to an anarchist proposal above is just explicitly a remix of the appeliste proposal. Isn't that disturbing? Can't you all come up with a positive, anarchist path forward that isn't just fear of an "invisible other?" Seems like it's not a small appeliste network (which mostly have momentum because they have ideas and proposals) that's holding us back, but our own lack of ideas.

It is their authoritarian model and drive for control and domination that put them in our cross hairs. Our ideas are the same: destroy those who attempt to subjugate individualism with their collectivist project.

You sound like you are blatantly defending them, making them out to be some innocent low-grade problem. The fact that they exist, have already done shit like they have in ZAD, and are getting comfortable in (non-confrontational) anarchist spaces, is a problem on its own.

It'd be interesting to read these critiques, not least because all the IC shit is vague ramblings in subculturally inspiring language that in the end doesn't give any real form.
Ultimately I'm wondering if you'd be critiquing a small group of people who identify with this thread and their actions at the ZAD that ur very hung up about, or if you'd be critiquing a theory that has gained popularity worldwide and certainly does not represent a homogeneous or thorough dogma, as far as I can see.

We definitely need more self-important booger-picking competitions among people who groove on crank "theories." A pompous prose style drives home the world-shaking substance of this Mighty Morphin Power Rangers stuff mighty nicely, too.

A lot of commenters seem to be upset about this project because appelistes do seem power hungry but are basically irrelevant, which is a fair point. I'm not in a big city and haven't seen much sign of the party, to be honest. I think it's worthwhile, though, because it does seem that the slow collapse of the post-war global order is under way, and times may shortly become very interesting. It's hard to say what may seem prescient 10 years from now.

I hope it's irrelevant, but your basic (and I do mean basic) anarchist bro is so immersed in anti-capitalism and antifa that they use the word "comrade" unironically and will defend Maoists as "fighting the good fight." Things are bleak out there.

I can see where you'd get this impression but as I've been saying, are we worried about a handful of maoists and reds because they're encroaching on the anarchist ghetto with their marxist language or because they represent some sort of actual threat? In other words, is this cool kid bullshit on the playground or should it actually interest me?

If you're right about the next 10 years and I suspect you are, then that'll mean being in the streets next to maoists, among others if you're in the streets at all. Look at france, basically the entire left-right spectrum is in the streets, sometimes coexisting in a hostile manner, sometimes openly attacking each other, whatever.

If you're not completely isolating yourself in an echo chamber then you'll be sharing space with all sorts of folks and only cybernetic delusion would conclude otherwise. So i'm standing there and I'll be expecting physical harm from the cops and maybe the far right, not the maoist nerds. The rest is just noise to me.

It's definitely important to avoid the echo chamber effect. I don't want to draw ideological lines or anything. And yes Maoists will exist; not much you can do about that. They're not a physical threat, but they are good at finding confused young people and promising them black and white answers to all their problems, as well as exploiting interpersonal tensions within groups. That's been my experience anyway, which is why it's disheartening that something as obvious as a bunch of beret wearing acronym enthusiasts have any kind of appeal to kids in the milieu.

So you're dismayed to watch capitalism's deterioration lead to the old pied pipers taking up the flute again? Me too I suppose but if we're talking about demagogues, I would argue there's far worse examples currently active, recruiting and kicking the overton window around at will. Authoritarian anti capitalist narratives have to swim upstream against a very strong current, they aren't making significant gains anywhere in the western world right now imo.

Antifascists have had to listen to a LOT of critique about overestimating threats in the last few years, I'm still confused as to why doesn't that apply to this in equal measure.

Is to come up with new distinct ideas of your own, hell you can even crudely borrow from some of these discourses without being structured by them. I for instance have been influenced sub-structurally by Friere Dupont's ideas. What matters is for anarchy to develop its own theoretical density that is an answer to the Marxist, Communist, Materialist stuff. For me obviously it's Stirner, egoism and a psychological conception of reality not a materialist one.

You already have the founding 4 of post left-anarchism(Black, Landstreicher, Bey and McQuinn) who have not been given proper successors. In my own way I'm trying to build on these ideas with my ideas of anarch-egoist-anarchy. I haven't much read this French stuff so I can't give much if anything to this project.

What you might want to consider is the discursive biome that makes up spaces related to anarchy. It might be time, for instance, to ditch the current diminishing return milieu and look into returning to philosophical, poetic, aesthetic, literary spaces as was the case just before and after WW2. Staying in THIS milieu would be tantamount to staying in old rotting syndicalist milieus in the 1930s. The milieu is a tertiary development of 1968 radical dialect and that dialect has run its course just like 1886 radical dialect ran its course heading into WW2.

By all means, individualist anarchists should publish more material to clarify their viewpoint. This is useful for all anarchists. Just one thing. Please be care when referring to "communists" to distinguish between anarcho-communists (from Kropotkin onwards) and Marxist-Leninists (advocates of totalitarian state capitalism). Of course, individualists shouldt express their theoretical opposition to communist (or socialist) anarchism, but they should not mush this up with all anarchists opposition to Stalinism and all forms of capitalism. (This is a different issue from whether or how to work with M-Ls in popular movements.)

"No such thing as 'state capitalism' by definition. It's a contradiction in terms."

wow, one might think that there might also be no such thing as 'arrogant ignorance' but alas, it's not an oxymoron, especially among anti-intellectual anarchoids...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
(for those of you with incredibly short attention spans and a fear and loathing of actually doing research, here's the tl;dr excerpts:

It has been suggested that the concept of state capitalism can be traced back to Mikhail Bakunin's critique during the First International of the potential for state exploitation under Marxist-inspired socialism...

Perhaps the earliest critique of the Soviet Union as state capitalist was formulated by the Russian anarchists as documented in Paul Avrich's work on Russian anarchism.[29]

This claim would become standard in anarchist works. For example, the prominent anarchist Emma Goldman in an article from 1935 titled "There Is No Communism in Russia" said of the Soviet Union:

Such a condition of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense Communistic [...] Soviet Russia, it must now be obvious, is an absolute despotism politically and the crassest form of state capitalism economically.[30])

I know you already know this boles but it's pretty likely that you're trying to talk sense to halfwit quasi alt right trolls and their shrivelled little brains recoil at anything with more nuance than socialism = EVIL and capitalism = not socialism, therefore all that is true and good in this world.

Neither you nor Boles Job can comprehend the nuances within the Left-Right binary social order. The economic model of capitalism began with the industrial revolution and can function in a variety of ideological societies and under the management and ownership of States, collectives, syndicates or by private individuals.

Capitalism actually began before the industrial revolution, during and following the protestant reformation. It began to flourish in the Medici mercantile dynasty of Italy and spread to the rest of Europe and England. There are also nascent elements of capitalism within hunter gatherer cultures along the west coast of California who used forms of money/currency (i.e. mostly shells) and traded extensively for goods.

What many anarchists (at least on here) don't seem to understand is that capitalism is essentially defined by the private individual or private group ownership and control over the means of production. When this is allowed and fostered by the state, it's called capitalism. When the state itself owns and controls the means of production, it's called socialism or communism.

To describe something as 'state capitalism' is thus an oxymoron. There was no individual private ownership of the means of production in the Soviet Union (except for a few private retail stores, barber shops, etc). There was no stock market, no way to invest in industry (except for a few foreign investment schemes), and no way for individuals or groups to 'own' a workplace. nearly everything was owned and controlled by the government. In other words, there was no capitalism as we know it in the Soviet Union.

It doesn't matter whether Bakunin said otherwise or not. We don't need Bakunin's authority on this, we just need to look at the actual meanings of the words.

I am getting sick and tired of always having to correct people on this.

Preceding these pedantic explorations into currency types, you neglected the Sumerian culture. But even precding these ancient Semitic and Egyptian hordes there existed ancient proto-capitalist societies along the Nile river who traded in slaves, gold and ivory!

The interesting thing about the early Nilotic civilizations, including the Ancient Egyptians, was that the proto-capitalism practiced by the elite priesthood, these methods of keeping records and ledgers, of using the abacus to determine percentages, these systems of commerce were adapted by the ancient Judean tribes and evolved into a clanned community of business units specializing in a trade or product. Families developed into wealthy dynasties and formed the first Jewish proto-capitalist tribal system. This is what irked Jesus, the uneven distribution of wealth and the division of labour within the Judaen culture.

No Way uses common "American" definitions of "capitalism" and "socialism." He or she does not take into account that in the Soviet Union and similar societies a small minority of collectivist bureaucrats "owned" (that is, controlled and used for their own benefit) the industry and wealth of the nation "privately" (that is, separately from the rest of the population). They produced commodities which they sold on the internal and international markets. They exchanged goods among enterprises, using banks as intermediaries. Using a labor market, they hired and fired workers (as opposed to using slaves or serfs). The workers produced the commodities which they bought with money on the domestic market. The whole system was in competition with the rest of the capitalist world (USSR Inc.). The overall drive was to accumulate, grow, and expand, as it is under traditional capitalism. A surplus was squeezed out of the workers and peasants. But this surplus was distributed among the bureaucrats in a fashion different from the way it is done among the traditional bourgeoisie. Otherwise the relationship between the workers and their exploiters was essentially the same. You can call this anything you want, but I find it most useful to use the label "state capitalism."

Meanwhile No Way explicitly rejects the history of anarchism which from its founding as a movement by Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc., has regarded itself as a variety (the most left-wing variety) of socialism (or communism). By this they meant the rejection of capitalism and its replacement by a cooperative society with production for use and self-managed industry and communities. Why don't you just say that you reject anarchism and advocate something else entirely?

Yes in the Soviet Union, the state (i.e. government bureaucrats) controlled the means of production. They did not produce for the benefit of themselves. Anyone in the Soviet Union could buy these products. Most people had food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education, health care, etc. These were not privately owned and controlled. These were owned and controlled by the state. For many things one had to actually apply to the government (Communist Party) to acquire them. Of course there were still people who were wealthier than others and could afford more.

Wayne seems to be trying to conflate the state with privately owned enterprises. They are quite distinct conceptually and practically. The mere existence of money, commodities, trade, etc does not make a society 'capitalist', for many non capitalist, and even nonindustrial societies have these elements. Extracting surplus also existed in feudal times before full blown Western industrial capitalism.

Whether Wayne likes it or not, capitalism has a precise meaning: the privately owned and controlled means of production. As distinct from a state owned and controlled means of production. The products may be the same, the relations of production may be the same, etc. but who actually owns and controls what makes a difference, both semantically, and practically.

This is why a term like 'state capitalism' make no sense, and only confuses matters. It conjoins two different and opposing owners and controllers of the means of production. Capitalists want to own and control production, they don't want the state to. As soon as the state owns and controls production, it is out of the hands of capitalists. There can be no 'state capitalism' by definition. It's absurd.

I used the terms socialist and communist loosely. I understand these are concepts in opposition to capitalism. But since the Soviet Union was not capitalist (state or otherwise) I used the common vernacular, and after all, the soviets did insist on calling THEMSELVES socialists and communists.. Modern anarchism comes out of early forms of socialism. Marx was the one who used the term communism. Perhaps it is best to call the USSR simply totalitarian and leave it at that.

A controlling financial investment class with marginal re-callable powers related to state and other forms of corporeal control and a controllable working class. That's it. In that regard the USSR checks out as capitalist. Capital as such is surplus extraction from labour, capitalism is an extension of that driven by state monopoly power. Capital plus profit motive, state monopoly power and controlled access to the means of production along with finance are what complete capitalism. The difference between the USSR and the US is simply that there is more financing done and operated by the state, that's it.

LMAO! You just made up your own definition of capitalism. It's not merely extraction of surplus value from labor. If it were, then feudalism would also qualify as capitalism. In fact, every society would be capitalist, including hunter gatherer bands who had hunting parties that shared the meat with non-hunters --- (i.e. who extracted value from the hunter/workers).

"The difference between the USSR and the US is simply that there is more financing done and operated by the state, that's it."

What I did say in terms of a solvent definition of capitalism is that you need the interplay of a controlling FINANCIAL INVESTMENT CLASS combined with a mobile controlled labour force. Surplus value from labour is obviously not sufficient as that can be anything from feudalism to libertarian socialism. Capitalism on the other hand is best characterized by financial money management and a profit motive.

okay, No Way, i'll bite. at least for a little while. only someone with an ideological disposition geared toward wanting capitalism to be inherent to human nature could say what you said about "hunter gatherer [sic] cultures along the west coast of California" exhibiting "nascent elements of capitalism." your highlighting of shell currency and trade as any sort of element of capitalism is a fucking stretch, mate. one of the defining aspects of capitalism is the monopoly on a recognized and exclusive currency, which is enforced though legal mechanisms. capitalist currency is both substantial (gold, for example) and abstract (banknotes or checks or bonds, for example), but both types are recognized as having specific value, and therefore enforceable. archaeological finds of items thousands of miles from their places of origin is a long-established fact, indicating extensive and established trade routes from at least the time of the Neolithic; all that proves is that humans from different areas and cultural groups have interacted with each other for thousands of years -- and all without developing anything that resembles capitalism, because capitalism is about property and ownership, and gatherer-hunters and pastoralists have very different ideas about ownership than capitalists. it's ludicrous to describe a culture that never developed into capitalism as having "nascent elements" of something that never emerged. the presumption of using the word "nascent" is that eventually these "elements," as an integral aspect of the culture, would have created actual elements of capitalism. absurd. unlike the enforceable and monopolized forms of currency known under capitalism, the accumulation of shells doesn't confer wealth.

but to get back to more basic aspects of capitalism. what must exist in order for an economic and social and political system to be called capitalist? the concept of property/ownership must be present. so too, must the concept of value inherent in concrete objects, in time/labor, and in the medium of enforceable exchange (aka currency). perhaps one of the most important aspects of capitalism is the process of generating profit from the exchange of goods and the providing of services. this is much more than "trade" although certain forms of trade are certainly a characteristic of capitalism, especially those that are based on the purchase of goods and services by using the local currency. but it's another stretch to refer to barter, for example, as capitalist, since even if there's a clear division of ownership as well as a way to recognize the time/labor that went into creating particular goods and services, there's no way to generate a consistent profit though it (although there might be temporary and ad hoc profit), and barter takes place outside the realm of currency. barter could be called casual or informal capitalism if you insist on characterizing it as capitalist, but again, it makes little sense to me to describe it that way without the well-known capitalist profit motive, to say nothing of an actual profit. the last aspect that defines capitalism is wage labor, the payment of enforceable currency for the time/labor of those involved in the production of manufactured goods and those who provide services to those who own the means of production. in short: the legal status of ownership; the ideology of value; an enforceable means of exchange (currency); wage labor. for you and other vulgar capitalists, the issue is who owns the means of production, while for those of us in the actual anti-capitalist camp, that's irrelevant. to use just one perhaps not well-enough known example, when the CNT-FAI implemented worker control/management over much of the industry of Catalonia and agriculture in Aragon from the summer of 1936 until the Stalinist counter-revolutionary offensive in the spring of 1937, many anarchists critiqued those experiments as "self-managed capitalism" since workers were still being paid wages in currency with the aim of generating profits (sure, to reinvest in the means of production rather than for personal wealth, but still).

anyway, if you put the state in control of the means of production, you can call it socialism or communism using a pro-capitalist dictionary all day every day until the cows come home, and you'd still find anarchists, socialists, and communists who will dispute that definition. because those of us who have a more nuanced, sophisticated, and historical understanding of how capitalism developed, how it became institutionalized, and what its actual characteristics are all share a common analytical framework. when the state is responsible for the manufacture and distribution of goods and services, for the payment of wages to workers, and for the reinvestment of profits, that's a system we will definitely call state capitalism. as opposed to private or corporate capitalism, but it's still capitalism because that's how radical anti-capitalists define capitalism.

my invocation of Bakunin and Goldman wasn't meant to rest my opinions on their authority, but to show you that the use of "state capitalism," far from being understood as a contradiction, has a long pedigree among anarchists. i agree that we need to look at the actual meanings -- and perhaps, more importantly, on the usage -- of the words, but just as we shouldn't rely on Bakunin, we also shouldn't rely on capitalists to define their own system for us. i'm not quite sick and tired of always having to explain what capitalism really is and what characteristics of it are salient for anti-capitalists. but i am sick and tired of people who invoke a single self-congratulatory Cold War pro-capitalist dictionary definition they learned in high school.

I don't "want" capitalism to be inherent in human nature. The definition of capitalism doesn't imply in any way or presuppose any ideas about human nature.

There are several different elements that capitalism are based on, two of which are trade and money. But these elements alone do not define capitalism. Many noncapitalist societies have had these. My example was some of the coastal California complex hunter gatherers who had a primitive form of money. I would also include the Pacific Northwest where many salmon streams along the coast were 'owned' by certain families and clans, who in turn 'owned' the fish they harvested and traded with. However, other people could fish these streams, they just had to ask permission. I am not saying these were capitalist societies, only that they had certain nascent forms or elements of capitalism. It's certainly not a 'stretch' to describe the facts this way. But boles seems triggered by this.

I really don't give a shit how radical anti-capitalist anarchists living in their own tiny micro-ghettos define capitalism, I am simply going by the actual dictionary definition and the way that 'capitalism' is used by 99% of the English speaking world.

MY MOM IS A CAPITALIST MONSTER WHO INVESTED IN ME AS A PROFITABLE INVESTMENT AND DOMESTIC SLAVE!
I GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MY MICRO-DEFINITION OF THE MOST GREEDY MATERNAL AUTHORITARIAN SLAVE MASTER IN MY MINISCULE UNIVERSE OF DOMESTIC SLAVE LABOUR!

My dad is an individualist capitalist who works me in his garden growing vegetables and flowers which he sells in the local market. He keeps 100% of the proceeds. I am a slave who receives 1 meal a day and sleeps in the barn. I work 16hrs/day 7 days a week.
He is a solitary private owner of the means of production and is inherently capitalistic in nature. He read Dawkin's The Selfish Gene and says capitalism is in the selfish gene!

Different commenter, you seem pretty hostile and your style of debate makes me think you're maybe just here to congratulate yourself for semantics but you understand that such politically loaded terms are going to involve a lot of misrepresentation, right?

Like, you're unlikely to apply precise definitions to real world economic systems. Huge propaganda machines are basically shifting the definitions around constantly as a way to attack each other and warp everybody's perceptions.

Not hostile, just tired of having to constantly correct this ridiculous oxymoronic meme about 'state capitalism'. Semantics is the linguistic term for the meaning of words. Obviously there are various degrees of government control and/or ownership in almost every modern state, so technically, every country could be called a state capitalist society. But if we're going to go down that road, we're going to end up without any conceptual economic distinction between the Soviet Union and the US, for example. "It's all just capitalism", the only difference is the degree of state control. Chomsky has described the US itself as 'state capitalism' based on all the subsidies, bailouts, and other public support for large corporations.

So the misrepresentation of a politically loaded term like capitalism is only coming from the established dictionary definition of capitalism that has been in use by sociologists, economists, historians, and anthropologists, for over 100 years, and not coming from some anonymous anarchist trolls on the internet quoting Bakunin or Engels? Fascinating.

Well 14:51, obviously you didn't know what the word semantics meant or you wouldn't have made such an idiotic comment that I'm just here to "congratulate myself on semantics". If we're not talking about what the word 'capitalism' means then what the fuck are we arguing about? Of course it's about semantics, what else is it about?

Ah but here's the thing, other posters have politely offered you quite compelling, cogent arguments and you just rejected those too. But I read you like a book so all you'll get from me is what you deserve.

No way says Le Way. There are a plethora of social dynamics and needs which form themselves into systems of production, divisions of labour, surplus profit and bonus exchanges and pseudo-currency value objects which have capitalist tendencies. Even the humble ant empire or bee colony have monarchist / capitalist hierarchies controlled by desires triggered by olferenomes.
Capitalism isn't an ideologically guided system but rather, a physiologically libidinal process of living and surviving with the least amount of intelligence. One is not smart if one becomes a capitalist billionaire, but rather, a greedy selfish fool. The story of Thales and the olive presses comes to mind.

Just to keep the pedantic baiters from jumping on a minor misspelling of pheromones, I mistakenly juxtaposed " ol " from olfactory (to do with smell senses) onto pheronomes which I spent with an "f" . Anyway, pheronomes, which has some relationship to fart-bongs, but I'm not exactly sure what that is!

sure, i know it's pro-Ayn Rand and pro-capitalist trolls who say the darnedest things... it's clear that halfwits and dimwits overpopulate the innerwebz, but ever since the days when Engels destroyed the dunderhead Dühring, it's been almost required for anti-capitalists to make our own points sharper by pointing out the various idiocies of our intellectual inferiors

No_tiqqun_no_co., you've probably noticed that the thread has drifted away from interesting individualist and nihilist submissions and been hijacked by boring hacks reciting doctrine from tomes of ideological manuscripts. The same old ideologues like Wayne the whining wobbly and Boles the belligerent binarist.
If you are going to include them in your zine be sure to purchase extra ink for printing out the walls of verbose text!

Not sure if the crowd or collective behind that project aren't related to this other, smaller faction that's been parasiting U.S. anarchism for a while... even since Keith Preston and the likes. There's a new trend of Alt Right fools who pose as -even believe themselves to be- anarchists. This trend has got big ever since the MAGA movement. In a way, the autonomous, non-State character of today's neonazi and other Far Right groups makes them compliant with some anarchist ontology, and becomes even more conductive if you add this whole anti-Left fixation (as if the Left was the biggest problem in the U.S.).

I bet some of these "anarcho-fascists" were allowed to hang around Thecollective and LBC, which is perhaps why this crowd go so much hate coming from the PNW and beyond, for how the predominant discourse is not as much anti-Alt-Right as it is post-Left... After all Preston and National-Anarchism has been allowed for a lot of tribune on the Brilliant, even if that failed. And there's also the myriads of commenters and chatters who've been allowed to openly discuss topics such as the Holocaust in some highly problematic manner.

But that said, I am not denying how increasingly parasitic and invasive this other Appeliste crowd has been over the last 10 years; only that the authors of this project seek to be throwing a funnel-shaped oversimplification of the rather diffuse and multi-dimensional clusterfuck within the anarchosphere, with authoritarian political recuperation coming from both Left and Right.

but encourage you to find other ways to flesh out or make your point besides just calling someone/thing moralist. it's a meaningless term at this piont, since it's getting used for and by every rando driveby.
just sayin'
(some options are... dualist, binary, simplistic, ignorant, purist, or, you know, sentences!)

Up against the accumulating evidence of the neofascist creep having found its den on this site, its IRC and perhaps even more in real life. Most recent event I witnessed, and I quote:

"The reason the jewish genocide is awful is not because of bad things being done. That happens all the time. It is because we aren't sharing in the monstrosity of horror, thus leaving massive victims of an enemy that disappeared, the Nazis. Thus the reason we are always hunting for them. The horror was not shared enough, I suppose.
I'm using "victim" in the contemptible way, not in the way leftists like"
- Wombat, in an @anarchyplanet convo

Interesting. So what shame we didn't have the Third Reich to come to North America so this guy would have had the privilege of taking part in the ethic cleansing for the Master Race to be restored... so that'd we'd KNOW how it is to genocide people and we'd stop being moral hypocrites chasing the defeated "Nazis" forever. Poor Nazis, right... will we ever leave them alone, just like these MAGA kids?

Coming from people who confuse "spooks" for "the spectre of Nazism". I might have known!

The term "ethnic cleansing " is passe because it was never really about race but about political economy. Hitler didn't reign down on Judaism because of race, that was just a convenient excuse in an era where racial superiority was accepted by most of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic gene possessing people. European Jews were the most pure genetic strain of people worshipping Judaism, but there were just as many Germans with the Europ3an Jew strain of genetic lineage who were Nazis. It was a gigantic conspiracy by the white leaders of capitalist industry in America, Britain and other allied nations to take control of the world finances and the Jews were the first on the block because they held the lnext largest capital holdings after the US, British, and Russians. Japan also threatened their dominance so they picked a fight with Japan.
It wasn't genocide, it was economicide!!

Godwin is the best logic fallacy for neonazis to use in defending their home on the internet, as per "you call us Nazis after x numbers of comments? GODWIN LAW! Uh-huh-huh!". Very dumb way to attempt shutting off what appears to be the valid exposure of trolls that are indeed Alt Right or neonazis.

Denial of ethnic cleansing by claiming that it was just the Third Reich overthrowing the political economic oppression of the evil Anglo-Saxon imperialists, who, like EVERYONE KNOWS BY NOW, are the ones who invaded the entire Europe and wanted to subjugate the planet to an ethnostate, Dah-UH! Killing 6 millions of Jews was to protect against a much bigger genocide, right?

Srsly, Womb-bat, stop pretending being legit or relevant in any sort of way. Fuck off and die, shitbag.

Also the Keith Preston stuff was all couched in a very hostile, critical way, as it should be. If you can't tell, that's because subtlety is wasted on you. Plus anyone can come in to the IRC, using almost any name and say anything, so this method of lurking in the irc until you can say AH HA! NAZI, would be very easy to abuse.

Srsly I'd like you to show me that this quote by Wombat came from somewhere/somebody else. I want you to show me that there's something I missed and that's just some really some absurd misunderstanding of astronomic proportions.

I meant it wasn't Wombat who made the 14:39 comment, just to clear up that to reduce the chance of confusion between the numerous disgusted and hysterical antifa commenters who are going to blow up the 'ethnic cleansing fallacy " comment.

Then if "public image" is all that matters to you, perhaps you could clarify that really problematic statement by Wombat, or make him clarify? But also the irc mods -starting with SUDS- could clarify why I was kick-banned from the chat room immediately -like about 2 seconds- after asking him wtf is he doing "contemptively" addressing the Holocaust victims (unlike how Leftists are... whatever that means), and that happened just as he went on taking the exact same stance than Breitbard on the whole MAGA kids debacle (so to say, the claim that it was an entire Leftist fabrication, that made the White conservative kids being the targets of nasty antifa nation-wide).

You know, if you take the quote above (that is attributed to Wombat) and edit it with proper grammar, it might actually be the opposite of what your critique is implying. Could an emdash in place of a comma alleviated the hurt in your buttocks? Is English your first language, 12:26? Is it the supposed authors? Do these dastardly IRC nihilists not articulate themselves properly, as we do?

"The reason the jewish genocide is awful is not because of bad things being done. That happens all the time. It is because we aren't sharing in the monstrosity of horror, thus leaving massive victims of an enemy that disappeared, the Nazis. Thus the reason we are always hunting for them. The horror was not shared enough, I suppose.
I'm using "victim" in the contemptible way, not in the way leftists like"

Yes you are right, fucker! There was a point missing in the end after "like".

What the quote's author could likely be saying (when articulated through proper grammar and intelligence) is that what is also terrible about the Holocaust is the fact that society continued to allow the Nazis (and fascist behavior in general) to exist, instead of completely stamping out. This was because the "monstrosity of horror" was not shared enough by those in society that were able to turn their backs on those directly impacted. Society should have done better job in destroying this monstrous enemy but it failed because society is terrible.

You are forcefully twisting the syntax to some patched, extraneous meaning, and are pretty mediocre at it.

"The reason the jewish genocide is awful is not because of bad things being done. (...) It is because we..."

Those two prepositions are expressing a mutual exclusion, by the negation of the first option, and the assertion of the second. It is not a "this or that", but a "not this, but that".

"This was because the "monstrosity of horror" was not shared enough by those in society that were able to turn their backs on those directly impacted."

Except that's not what he said, but ONE of the potential connotations of that sentence, and not the most obvious.

- "The horror was not shared enough"... so what does it mean in the real world? That more Germans, Europeans, and Americans should have taken part in this genocide, so that they'd have an experience of the horror, OR that North Americans should have known the horror of the Wehrmacht coming on their soil?

- "I'm using "victim" in the contemptible way, not in the way leftists like."

"Comtemptible" towards the designation of Jews as victims, or towards Jews themselves?

If there's anyone here who needs to put brains into syntax, it's Wombat, not me. That counts especially when discussing such intense subjects, on the internet and through text, no matter if it's for communicating intelligent ideas, or for covering his repugnant ideas.

I think all you've demonstrated here is the hysterical minefield that makes discussion about this stuff impossible for most people. Ever heard of zygmunt bauman? He says a lot of similar things to the point being made here, AS A HOLOCAUST HISTORIAN OF JEWISH ANCESTRY.

i agree with zombietroll, and regretably, with grammarian here as well. your read on this betrays more about you looking to be pissed off rather than to understand someone's point.
not saying wombat is a good or careful writer, he's usually not. but that doesn't mean you need to start fires.

good for you for actually quoting though (so that people could address the actual point) instead of just talking bullshit like so many do.

Lastly, there are a number of Jewish, anti-racist/anti-fascist anarchists in the chat room that you are bad-jacketing simply because of your poor understanding and bigoted misreading. It is beyond unacceptable. It is detestable.

It's interesting that with all these insults, and after me showing you how this quote by Wombat is more like to have a fascistic, antisemitic meaning, all you got to provide is zero argument whatsoever, along with unfounded claims on the antifascist sensibilities of some IRC users including Wombat. I don't know any of those people and most likely you don't know me neither, so in that case, peer validation produces a blank check.

Then you got Zombietroll telling me, without any quote or reference whatsoever, how Zigmunt Baumann had a similar stance on the Holocaust and its perpetrators... but how and where did he say that, through his extensive load of work? We gotta accept that because Baumann would have apparently agreed with Wombat, then Wombat not a fascist. Right!

Look friendo, the burden of proof is on the one hurling nazi accusations for obvious reasons. I'm not required to cite and source as if I'm seeking your approval, quite the opposite, you're being pretty shady imo! Care to keep doubling down?

Where is the Nazi accusation in my comment at https://anarchistnews.org/comment/404#comment-404 ? This problematic quote might be the expression of someone who's some Alt Right antisemite, OR just some "shady" character who doesn't give a damn about the principle of clarity in his online posts, not even when it's talking about something as bad as the Holocaust.

But there's wording being used in here that, **especially in conjunction with his few other comments on the MAGA kids story**, may imply that he could be worse than some guy with dubious internet rhetoric.

I may stop doubling down if you'd provide with any solid argument on my way.

But I don't care about any of this that much. Does your stupid theory survive occam's razor? No. Do I care about you or what you think? No. Does anything that takes place in @news comments matter at all? No. No no no and no. And more no.

The principle of clarity? You're grasping at straws here. Look, I'll always recognize that fash bashing is an unfortunate necessity, but if a lack of clarity were a crime than at least 50% of antifa I've met would have been sentenced to death for near total incoherence. Nothing to see here, folks.

We are mostly anarchists and antifascists and communists.
you are in a debate with yourself because what unites us is not critiques and ideologies but PRACTICAL DESTRUCTION OF CAPITALISM.
we want to be more anarchic than you, and more communist than the marxists, and more wild than the greens

we really mean to destroy this society.

sorry you had some student talk down to you or something sounds annoying

I won't be putting words in this other commenter's mouth, but I'm pretty sure that all they've been doing is "building power", and just building the commune... By now we know what that means from the outside. Game of Thrones shit all over.

I'm surprised they haven't already moved to the real estate industry in NA by now. It's highly-profitable as "dual power" scheme! Hollywood knows.

"what unites us is not critiques and ideologies but PRACTICAL DESTRUCTION OF CAPITALISM"

BITCH PLEASE!

Your worship of Empire's Joker Deleuze and Commie Pimp Guattari sez otherwise. But also more seriously your politics of building communal capital are equally reactionary and conductive to the broader creation of social capital and Soft Power schemes. Identity politics, admonishing of the much-vilified Individuals, those shitty elite gang dynamics, call-out culture... this reeks sub-capitalism.

On the other hand, I can point you to a few local capitalists who've shown more support to progressive projects that benefit the poor than the Appelistas crowd would never dream of... yet upfront, these few people would be instantly identified as "bourgie right-wing" or something.

As Lao Tse said (with different wording of course)... doing good is something that is much better achieved in spite (of regular conditions), rather than by design (as a regular condition). The records of both Christanity and socialism have show this to be right; as they mostly failed at spreading their justice through the world, but rather imposed everywhere the political conditions for the perceived realization of their justice.

The same applies to your clan... since after all you're just a newer brand of socialists.You have imposed a burden of political conditions in the ZAD that have been oppressive, invasive and destructive, more than they helped. I have seen your crowd destroying two forests over there, and attack green anarchos, all in the name of the machine. Your interpersonal ruthlessness is the same than that of the dominant system, the same than the bureaucracy an its police, only a ramification of it; and your inability to overcome it is your central failure.

It's called "copy-paste". It's some sophisticated technique invented back in 1997 by some l77t geek I think, when they found out how to use a computer mouse. So since there's no copyright on this comment, I suppose you can reuse it as you will for your publication.

because they’re presenting as a self-stylized badly written cartoon character, but deep down there’s a real person that craves an adventure down a path through which i might take a few steps as detour, as a means of procrastination, diversion, stalling and escapism.
we’re sad people to regard, but don’t take pity on us, it’s a lost case, and there’s no reward in ameliorating it.

We're a kind of mirror image of mankind... a fucked up species riddled with their self-hatred and deceitful authoritarian gimmicks that make the vast numbers falling prey to the spooks set up by a thin minority of parasites, and reified by the larger numbers of cowardly normies. And to a smaller scale, impressionable people falling prey to manipulators, despots and other insecure minds. Like that dude who convinced a bunch of young women to come to his country prana cult, that led several of his disciples to suffer the consequences of extensive starvation. This shit's real. I know the guy and he's still in charge of a famous café in Mtl. Young women are still coming to him like he's their best confident. Dog knows if he ever paid for what he did, as people across generations forget their history. Unrelated to Appelistes, tho.

Humans are sick animals. Their future is either through the eschatological healing by some superhuman entity-ies; or their self-destruction, after taking most other (innocent) species in their demise. Pick one